Other countries outspend the United States in clean energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 3-31-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
This story appeared online on Thursday, 3-35-2010 nearly a week ago.
I’ll quote sections of it and then comment.
“China trouncing U.S. in clean energy investing NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- By Steve Hargreaves, staff writer March 25, 2010
China overtook the United States in renewable energy investments for the first time ever in 2009, attracting nearly twice as many dollars and becoming the world's largest market for clean energy projects.
Renewable energy investments in China - mostly wind farms - totaled $34.6 billion in 2009, according to report released Thursday by the Pew Charitable Trusts and Bloomberg New Energy Finance. In the United States, $18.6 billion was spent.
The report's authors stressed it was the stable, long-term policies put forth by the Chinese government and easier access to credit that attracted the money, and said the numbers do not bode well for America.
"The United States' competitive position is at risk in the emerging clean energy economy," Phyllis Cuttino, director of the Pew Environment Group's Global Warming Campaign, said in a statement.”
My Comment:
In the United States, the credit markets imploded which slammed on the brakes on larger renewable energy projects that required credit financing. The cancelling of those large projects and of initiating similar projects sharply reduced the dollar totals we would otherwise have seen. My hope is that as our credit markets gradually become more normal and more feed-in tariff style incentive plans are launched that make many of these projects easier to finance our total renewable energy spending per year will become more competitive.
“The report noted that over 700,000 clean energy jobs have been created in the Untied States since 1998, and with so much money being invested in the alternative energy market, this was likely just the beginning.
But with the U.S. losing its dominance in renewable energy, future jobs could be on the line.”
My comment:
One of three ways this will improve is for the U.S. credit markets to return to financing large renewable energy projects as they were doing before the credit collapse.
The second way is to begin to place some kind of tax or disincentive on fossil fuels &/or to include the true environmental costs of using it in its cost to use for energy. The article’s next point talks about that very point.
“Cuttino urged U.S. lawmakers to put a price on carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas emitted from burning fossil fuels. A price on carbon would make fossil fuels more expensive and renewables more competitive. She also said the country needs to mandate that utilities buy a certain percent of their power from renewable sources, and create stable, long-term subsidies for renewable energy.
China uses huge amounts of coal to generate electricity and has famously resisted putting a price on carbon dioxide. But the country does have an aggressive mandate that its utilities use more renewable energy.
There are several bills in Congress that would do what Cuttino is seeking but they face considerable resistance from lawmakers and the general public. Opponents either fear the measures would be too costly to the economy, don't believe renewable energy is ready for prime time, or don't think global warming is a major problem.”
My comments:
First, the good news is that we may be getting close to a set of bills the different interests will accept. Since this article came out, President Obama began moving his policy towards increasing the energy independence of the United States by adding more domestic production of gas and oil from offshore drilling. The upcoming bills which support that and more nuclear plants in return for more support of renewable energy production, energy efficiency measures, and some kind of new price on carbon I think will eventually find enough support to pass.
Second, the reality is that dramatically increased costs for fossil fuels and possibly reduced access to supply may arrive within 4 to 10 years. If we ignore global warming that remains true and a fearsome and massive threat to the economy of the United States. Even if we slow the economy in the short run by 2 to 5 %, if we can cut or reliance on fossil fuels in half within 20 years, our economy will be in far better shape.
Every Republican and Conservative Democrat in the U.S. congress needs to understand that and take action accordingly. My hope is that by offering more of the domestic production and nuclear they want to help solve this, they will vote for the rest of the renewable energy and energy efficiency measures we need so badly.
“Worldwide the report said $162 billion was spent on renewable energy, down just 6.6% from the year before. That compares to a 19% drop in investment in the oil and gas industry, according to the report.
In 2010, Bloomberg New Energy Finance is expecting a 25% increase in renewable energy investments to $200 billion.
Asia, with economies that were less severely hit by the recession and easier access to money, saw a 37% increase in investments in 2009. In Europe and America's harder hit economies and tighter capital markets, investments dropped 16% and 33% respectively.”
My comment:
That does suggest that clean energy spending will get better soon and may do so more in the U.S. than in some other countries.
“In relation to the size of its economy, Spain saw the largest investment, 0.71% of its gross domestic product went into clean energy. Spain was followed by the United Kingdom, China and Brazil. The United States ranked 11th.”
My comment:
As credit markets in the U.S. return to normal, that may improve. But since the future economy of the countries involved will be largely determined by how the county ranks on this comparison, I think the United States must set a goal to move into the top 3 in this measure and stay there!
“Most of the money spent on renewable energy is in the form of power projects, wind farms, solar arrays or other things that actually produce electricity. Only a small part is spent on R&D or capitalizing start-up companies.
Yet when it comes to innovation, the United States is still the world's leader. The country attracted 60% of all venture capital money spent on renewable energy worldwide. Venture capital generally goes to start-up firms that hold the most promise for future technologies.
"We're very good at creating companies," John Woolard, chief executive at solar power firm BrightSource Energy, said on a conference call discussing the report. "We're not doing a very good job creating markets." “
My comment:
That does bode well for the future for two reasons. Once renewable energy costs less to produce than fossil fuel generated energy, our innovative companies and their technologies will enable us to dramatically pick up the pace on adding more renewably generated electricity. And, much of the money earned by those companies from sales outside the United States will remain here and grow our economy.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Way to create more U.S. clean energy companies....
Today's post: Wednesday, 3-24-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to. Way to create more U.S. clean energy companies
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins; has been quoted and I think even testified that the United States is falling behind the rest of the world in developing all kinds of clean energy companies and in growing the better companies to large size.
I agree with John that we in the United States must do far better to grow and foster clean energy companies.
However, here in the Silicon Valley with its many kinds of clean energy companies and their clear potential future contributions it seems a bit hard to believe.
Bloom Energy's recent announcement is a good example. They've announced a reasonably cost effective and high efficiency fuel cell to make electricity using natural gas and which produces virtually no pollution and which companies can install at their own sites overcoming transmission losses when the grid is up and disruption of supply when the grid goes down from wind or earthquake problems.
John says that the rest of the world is beating us in clean energy and apparently himself has a list of the companies in the rest of the world that are doing so.
But the rest of the world has long copied our good ideas and tried to build them even better.
I’ve asked John’s assistant to me by email and to the San Francisco Chronicle, and the San Jose Mercury News, and the New York times, and the Wall Street journal some information on these companies outside the United States.
I asked:
“What technology innovations do they use? If they are big companies now, what did they do to get big?”
Here's why I'd like this done.
If our entrepreneurs and innovative companies never find out about these companies and their technology, they cannot try to build it better or build a business that a makes use of the capacities of these companies outside the United States.
But if the media began reporting on them regularly, that could easily change for the better.
Understandably, most of the coverage here is of companies located here. But if the rest of the world is beating us that badly, I think it would help us to know a good bit more about their clean energy companies for the reasons I’ve just stated.
If I get some of this info from his assistant, I’ll do posts on the more promising things I find myself here.
But, what I’m really hoping to do is to get the major media sources to cover this area well and often.
Today's post: Wednesday, 3-24-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to. Way to create more U.S. clean energy companies
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins; has been quoted and I think even testified that the United States is falling behind the rest of the world in developing all kinds of clean energy companies and in growing the better companies to large size.
I agree with John that we in the United States must do far better to grow and foster clean energy companies.
However, here in the Silicon Valley with its many kinds of clean energy companies and their clear potential future contributions it seems a bit hard to believe.
Bloom Energy's recent announcement is a good example. They've announced a reasonably cost effective and high efficiency fuel cell to make electricity using natural gas and which produces virtually no pollution and which companies can install at their own sites overcoming transmission losses when the grid is up and disruption of supply when the grid goes down from wind or earthquake problems.
John says that the rest of the world is beating us in clean energy and apparently himself has a list of the companies in the rest of the world that are doing so.
But the rest of the world has long copied our good ideas and tried to build them even better.
I’ve asked John’s assistant to me by email and to the San Francisco Chronicle, and the San Jose Mercury News, and the New York times, and the Wall Street journal some information on these companies outside the United States.
I asked:
“What technology innovations do they use? If they are big companies now, what did they do to get big?”
Here's why I'd like this done.
If our entrepreneurs and innovative companies never find out about these companies and their technology, they cannot try to build it better or build a business that a makes use of the capacities of these companies outside the United States.
But if the media began reporting on them regularly, that could easily change for the better.
Understandably, most of the coverage here is of companies located here. But if the rest of the world is beating us that badly, I think it would help us to know a good bit more about their clean energy companies for the reasons I’ve just stated.
If I get some of this info from his assistant, I’ll do posts on the more promising things I find myself here.
But, what I’m really hoping to do is to get the major media sources to cover this area well and often.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Here comes peak oil ready or not!....
Today's post: Wednesday, 3-17-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
Here in California, I once campaigned for a man called Steve Poizner who made a convincing case he understood the need for sources of energy for our economy other than oil. That was my main motivation for supporting him.
It seems I massively overestimated how smart he was, how ethical he was, and how much he really understood about the energy crisis and its very likely dire consequences for our economy if it’s not handled well.
He AND Meg Whitman are now the Republican candidates for Governor of California.
Under the Republican Governor here, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California has almost done the right thing on energy; and he personally helped the state pioneer some of those programs.
Now both Steve Poizner, who I had THOUGHT understood the energy situation -- AND Meg Whitman recently debated and BOTH said they would postpone those same programs until the economy improves.
Given the news I’m posting on today, neither one is well informed enough on this issue to be QUALIFIED to be Governor of California.
Here’s why.
When peak oil hits, if we have done too little to:
add decent amounts of electricity from clean or cleaner sources,
put many all electric and plug-in hybrids on the road,
and set up many programs to provide interim fuels from sources other than petroleum,
massive run ups in fuel and transport costs will return and rapidly get so bad, the economy will be horrible and might even be worse than that!
Do you see evidence will be ready for this in 5 or 6 years? We’re getting there. But achieving this adequately is more like 10 or 20 years out from what I’ve seen.
Oops! We may need to be ready in 5 or 6 years anyway!
Recently, a source that’s well informed and knowledgeable on oil reserves and real demand for oil says that we can expect peak oil in 2014.
That’s soon! That’s just 4 years off!
Given that, there is NO acceptable excuse for postponing ANY programs that can help us deal with that -- NONE whatever.
Needless to say, as a moderate Republican, I wish Arnold was running again. But since he is not, it looks now like I’ll be campaigning for the Democrat, Jerry Brown.
If peak oil does arrive in 2014, it looks to me as if we will need all the help we can get to avoid a REALLY BAD economy.
Here’s that story.:
“Oil Production to Peak in 2014, Scientists Predict by Jeremy Hsu LiveScience Contributor LiveScience.com Friday, 3-12-2010
Predicting the end of oil has proven tricky and often controversial, but Kuwaiti scientists now say that global oil production will peak in 2014.
Their work represents an updated version of the famous Hubbert model, which correctly predicted in 1956 that U.S. oil reserves would peak within 20 years. Many researchers have since tried using the model to predict when worldwide oil production might peak.
Some have said production already peaked. One earlier model by Swedish researchers suggested that oil would peak sometime between 2008 and 2018. And other researchers have argued there are decades to go before oil production goes into irreversible decline. The only thing they all agree on: Oil is a finite and very valuable resource.
The issue's profile was raised today with a new report projecting increased demand. After peaking above $130 a barrel in mid-2008, crude oil prices dipped to below $40 in early 2009 as global demand tanked amid the recession. Prices have been rising ever since and are above $80 now. Today, the International Energy Agency said it expects demand to resume the sort of growth that was common in recent years. Much of that growth has involved the modernizing economies of China and India.
Updated model The scientists from Kuwait University and the Kuwait Oil Company adopted a newer approach by including many Hubbert production cycles, or bell-shaped curves showing the rise and fall of a non-recyclable resource. Earlier models typically assumed just one production cycle, despite the fact that most oil-producing nations have historically experienced more of a rollercoaster ride in production.
Such production cycles reflect the influence of new technological innovations in the oil industry, government regulations, economic conditions and political events. The factors include the discovery of new oil deposits, the recent economic recession and the rise of renewable energy.
Take Mexico as just one example. The nation that has long represented a top oil exporter has experienced plummeting oil production, and might even begin importing oil within the decade, the New York Times reports. Its troubles have arisen from a lack of technology to explore more inaccessible oil deposits, and a conundrum stemming from a 1938 law that banned foreign oil companies.
Caltech physicist David Goodstein has argued for a practical approach that focuses on preparing for the end of oil, regardless of when it happens. He noted that the latest prediction seems to represent a serious, thoughtful estimate.
"Of course there are large uncertainties in estimates of this kind, but this one is as good as any I've seen," Goodstein told LiveScience.
Some oil companies and consultancy firms such as Cambridge Energy Research Associates have speculated that oil will peak sometime after 2020, but a number of oil geologists and executives predict it will happen much sooner. “
“The Kuwaiti study created its world model for peak oil based on 47 individual models for each major oil-producing nation. It also took a separate look at the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which includes nations that control about 35 percent of the world's oil reserves.
More complications may still change the ultimate end date for peak oil. OPEC's latest projection suggests that world oil demand will grow by 900,000 barrels per day in 2010, according to an Associated Press story this week. That follows a period of low oil demand during the height of the worldwide recession in 2009.
For now, Kuwaiti scientists say that the world continues to consume its oil reserves at a rate of about 2.1 percent each year. They plan to continue including new data that can refine the model as time goes by.”
My sincere and strong hope is that the energy bill sponsored by Senators Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham is passed and signed into law.
If peak oil will arrive that soon, we will need every part of each of that bill’s programs to survive the economic hit of Peak Oil.
We will badly need the new renewable energy it proposes.
We will badly need the new electricity produced by nuclear power that it proposes.
And, though I wish it were otherwise, we not only need to include the additional oil drilling in the United States it proposes to get the votes to get the bill passed,
we may well need the oil itself to help stave off disaster for our economy due to the rapid run ups in cost and drop off in supply from sources outside the United States.
Today's post: Wednesday, 3-17-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
Here in California, I once campaigned for a man called Steve Poizner who made a convincing case he understood the need for sources of energy for our economy other than oil. That was my main motivation for supporting him.
It seems I massively overestimated how smart he was, how ethical he was, and how much he really understood about the energy crisis and its very likely dire consequences for our economy if it’s not handled well.
He AND Meg Whitman are now the Republican candidates for Governor of California.
Under the Republican Governor here, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California has almost done the right thing on energy; and he personally helped the state pioneer some of those programs.
Now both Steve Poizner, who I had THOUGHT understood the energy situation -- AND Meg Whitman recently debated and BOTH said they would postpone those same programs until the economy improves.
Given the news I’m posting on today, neither one is well informed enough on this issue to be QUALIFIED to be Governor of California.
Here’s why.
When peak oil hits, if we have done too little to:
add decent amounts of electricity from clean or cleaner sources,
put many all electric and plug-in hybrids on the road,
and set up many programs to provide interim fuels from sources other than petroleum,
massive run ups in fuel and transport costs will return and rapidly get so bad, the economy will be horrible and might even be worse than that!
Do you see evidence will be ready for this in 5 or 6 years? We’re getting there. But achieving this adequately is more like 10 or 20 years out from what I’ve seen.
Oops! We may need to be ready in 5 or 6 years anyway!
Recently, a source that’s well informed and knowledgeable on oil reserves and real demand for oil says that we can expect peak oil in 2014.
That’s soon! That’s just 4 years off!
Given that, there is NO acceptable excuse for postponing ANY programs that can help us deal with that -- NONE whatever.
Needless to say, as a moderate Republican, I wish Arnold was running again. But since he is not, it looks now like I’ll be campaigning for the Democrat, Jerry Brown.
If peak oil does arrive in 2014, it looks to me as if we will need all the help we can get to avoid a REALLY BAD economy.
Here’s that story.:
“Oil Production to Peak in 2014, Scientists Predict by Jeremy Hsu LiveScience Contributor LiveScience.com Friday, 3-12-2010
Predicting the end of oil has proven tricky and often controversial, but Kuwaiti scientists now say that global oil production will peak in 2014.
Their work represents an updated version of the famous Hubbert model, which correctly predicted in 1956 that U.S. oil reserves would peak within 20 years. Many researchers have since tried using the model to predict when worldwide oil production might peak.
Some have said production already peaked. One earlier model by Swedish researchers suggested that oil would peak sometime between 2008 and 2018. And other researchers have argued there are decades to go before oil production goes into irreversible decline. The only thing they all agree on: Oil is a finite and very valuable resource.
The issue's profile was raised today with a new report projecting increased demand. After peaking above $130 a barrel in mid-2008, crude oil prices dipped to below $40 in early 2009 as global demand tanked amid the recession. Prices have been rising ever since and are above $80 now. Today, the International Energy Agency said it expects demand to resume the sort of growth that was common in recent years. Much of that growth has involved the modernizing economies of China and India.
Updated model The scientists from Kuwait University and the Kuwait Oil Company adopted a newer approach by including many Hubbert production cycles, or bell-shaped curves showing the rise and fall of a non-recyclable resource. Earlier models typically assumed just one production cycle, despite the fact that most oil-producing nations have historically experienced more of a rollercoaster ride in production.
Such production cycles reflect the influence of new technological innovations in the oil industry, government regulations, economic conditions and political events. The factors include the discovery of new oil deposits, the recent economic recession and the rise of renewable energy.
Take Mexico as just one example. The nation that has long represented a top oil exporter has experienced plummeting oil production, and might even begin importing oil within the decade, the New York Times reports. Its troubles have arisen from a lack of technology to explore more inaccessible oil deposits, and a conundrum stemming from a 1938 law that banned foreign oil companies.
Caltech physicist David Goodstein has argued for a practical approach that focuses on preparing for the end of oil, regardless of when it happens. He noted that the latest prediction seems to represent a serious, thoughtful estimate.
"Of course there are large uncertainties in estimates of this kind, but this one is as good as any I've seen," Goodstein told LiveScience.
Some oil companies and consultancy firms such as Cambridge Energy Research Associates have speculated that oil will peak sometime after 2020, but a number of oil geologists and executives predict it will happen much sooner. “
“The Kuwaiti study created its world model for peak oil based on 47 individual models for each major oil-producing nation. It also took a separate look at the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which includes nations that control about 35 percent of the world's oil reserves.
More complications may still change the ultimate end date for peak oil. OPEC's latest projection suggests that world oil demand will grow by 900,000 barrels per day in 2010, according to an Associated Press story this week. That follows a period of low oil demand during the height of the worldwide recession in 2009.
For now, Kuwaiti scientists say that the world continues to consume its oil reserves at a rate of about 2.1 percent each year. They plan to continue including new data that can refine the model as time goes by.”
My sincere and strong hope is that the energy bill sponsored by Senators Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham is passed and signed into law.
If peak oil will arrive that soon, we will need every part of each of that bill’s programs to survive the economic hit of Peak Oil.
We will badly need the new renewable energy it proposes.
We will badly need the new electricity produced by nuclear power that it proposes.
And, though I wish it were otherwise, we not only need to include the additional oil drilling in the United States it proposes to get the votes to get the bill passed,
we may well need the oil itself to help stave off disaster for our economy due to the rapid run ups in cost and drop off in supply from sources outside the United States.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Much cleaner electricity from coal with new technologies....
Today's post: Wednesday, 3-10-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
Just after my last post, I got word for the Bay Area Tech Wire email service that:
“(Menlo Park, Calif.) Menlo Park-based SRI International, a nonprofit research and development institute, has landed $4.5 million from the U.S. Department of Energy to evaluate the viability of using a special process to capture carbon dioxide at coal gasification power plants. The company is partnering with GreatPoint Energy on the project, expected to be completed in 2012. GreatPoint has developed a technology called "Bluegas" for converting coal into hydrogen and synthetic natural gas.
http://www.sri.com/news/releases/030310.html
Menlo Park, Calif. —March 3, 2010—SRI International, an independent nonprofit research and development institute, announced today it has been awarded a $4.5M Department of Energy (DoE) project evaluate the technical and economic viability of carbon dioxide capture using an ammonium carbonate-ammonium bicarbonate (AC-ABC) process at gasification plants, including integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plants.
This new project is one of several projects at SRI aimed at finding cost-effective ways to recover carbon dioxide from power plants so it can be sequestered. One of the advantages of the AC-ABC process is that it removes carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide at pressure, resulting in less energy needed to capture the carbon dioxide. In addition, the AC-ABC approach has the potential to be commercialized at a low cost and in a relatively short amount of time because it does not require the development of novel materials, solvents, or reactor configurations.
The research project, which is estimated to be completed in 2012, will include a field test at a coal gasifier that is operated by SRI's partner on the project, GreatPoint Energy.
http://www.greatpointenergy.com/
GreatPoint Energy
222 Third Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
info@greatpointenergy.com
Phone: 617.401.8760
Fax: 617.849.5691”
If I read this correctly, I think it means that it will be possible to set up a plant that turns coal into methane; then uses the methane efficiently with no air pollution other than CO2 using Bloom Energy’s new “servers” that use a lower cost fuel cell.
(See http://www.bloomenergy.com for more details.)
Then the exhaust can go through this “ammonium carbonate-ammonium bicarbonate (AC-ABC) process” followed by sending the remainder to a “digester” where remaining CO2 is used by algae to make biofuels; and the CO2 sequestered by the “ammonium carbonate-ammonium bicarbonate (AC-ABC) process” can then be sent to a “digester” that part of the CO2 is used by algae to make biofuels.
In this way coal can be processed into methane which essentially will be turned into electricity, water vapor, and biofuels.
To be sure, this will not be cheap; and when the biofuels are burned the CO2 will be released.
But it would or will make electricity with no air pollution released other than CO2 and it may be a way that countries such as the United States and China with large coal deposits can use far less petroleum for fuels due to the large amount of biofuels produced.
They can then do as J. Paul Getty foresaw years ago, and mostly use petroleum to make petrochemicals.
It will also help slow the demand for and price increases for petroleum and fuels for transport by supplying abundant biofuels.
The math and processes to make this work cost efficiently may slow its adoption at first.
But it’s big appeal is that it is a clean energy way to keep from having to drop the use of coal entirely starting from a point where we and the Chinese are so heavily dependent on coal.
Also, a very strong point in its favor is that these combination power plants can be located close to the coal and minimize having to transport coal long distances because you can much more efficiently set up transmission lines for the electricity and pipelines for the biofuels. This will be of great value in China where I’ve read that snow has sometimes seriously blocked the trains carrying coal from the West part where it’s mined to the Eastern part where most of the population and power plants are now located.
Today's post: Wednesday, 3-10-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
Just after my last post, I got word for the Bay Area Tech Wire email service that:
“(Menlo Park, Calif.) Menlo Park-based SRI International, a nonprofit research and development institute, has landed $4.5 million from the U.S. Department of Energy to evaluate the viability of using a special process to capture carbon dioxide at coal gasification power plants. The company is partnering with GreatPoint Energy on the project, expected to be completed in 2012. GreatPoint has developed a technology called "Bluegas" for converting coal into hydrogen and synthetic natural gas.
http://www.sri.com/news/releases/030310.html
Menlo Park, Calif. —March 3, 2010—SRI International, an independent nonprofit research and development institute, announced today it has been awarded a $4.5M Department of Energy (DoE) project evaluate the technical and economic viability of carbon dioxide capture using an ammonium carbonate-ammonium bicarbonate (AC-ABC) process at gasification plants, including integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plants.
This new project is one of several projects at SRI aimed at finding cost-effective ways to recover carbon dioxide from power plants so it can be sequestered. One of the advantages of the AC-ABC process is that it removes carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide at pressure, resulting in less energy needed to capture the carbon dioxide. In addition, the AC-ABC approach has the potential to be commercialized at a low cost and in a relatively short amount of time because it does not require the development of novel materials, solvents, or reactor configurations.
The research project, which is estimated to be completed in 2012, will include a field test at a coal gasifier that is operated by SRI's partner on the project, GreatPoint Energy.
http://www.greatpointenergy.com/
GreatPoint Energy
222 Third Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
info@greatpointenergy.com
Phone: 617.401.8760
Fax: 617.849.5691”
If I read this correctly, I think it means that it will be possible to set up a plant that turns coal into methane; then uses the methane efficiently with no air pollution other than CO2 using Bloom Energy’s new “servers” that use a lower cost fuel cell.
(See http://www.bloomenergy.com for more details.)
Then the exhaust can go through this “ammonium carbonate-ammonium bicarbonate (AC-ABC) process” followed by sending the remainder to a “digester” where remaining CO2 is used by algae to make biofuels; and the CO2 sequestered by the “ammonium carbonate-ammonium bicarbonate (AC-ABC) process” can then be sent to a “digester” that part of the CO2 is used by algae to make biofuels.
In this way coal can be processed into methane which essentially will be turned into electricity, water vapor, and biofuels.
To be sure, this will not be cheap; and when the biofuels are burned the CO2 will be released.
But it would or will make electricity with no air pollution released other than CO2 and it may be a way that countries such as the United States and China with large coal deposits can use far less petroleum for fuels due to the large amount of biofuels produced.
They can then do as J. Paul Getty foresaw years ago, and mostly use petroleum to make petrochemicals.
It will also help slow the demand for and price increases for petroleum and fuels for transport by supplying abundant biofuels.
The math and processes to make this work cost efficiently may slow its adoption at first.
But it’s big appeal is that it is a clean energy way to keep from having to drop the use of coal entirely starting from a point where we and the Chinese are so heavily dependent on coal.
Also, a very strong point in its favor is that these combination power plants can be located close to the coal and minimize having to transport coal long distances because you can much more efficiently set up transmission lines for the electricity and pipelines for the biofuels. This will be of great value in China where I’ve read that snow has sometimes seriously blocked the trains carrying coal from the West part where it’s mined to the Eastern part where most of the population and power plants are now located.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
More on Bloom Energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 3-3-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
Recently, Bloom Energy recently rolled back the curtain on their technology and product. They now are getting into production with a commercial product that can make electricity from natural gas or methane and perhaps other fuels onsite and cost effectively enough to save enough in reduced bills from grid distributed energy in 7 to 8 years to pay for their system.
It would be nice if that could be lowered to 2 to 4 years in the future; and it may be.
The key is using a fuel cell that does not require hydrogen or platinum or dangerous acids to work but which works as well or better as fuel cells that do. They apparently have such a technology that works.
See http://www.bloomenergy.com for more details.
Also, their initial product for the commercial market produces enough power for 100 homes. But the technology IS adaptable to make fuel cells of perhaps a three hundredth that size that will be sold for various sizes of homes and much smaller businesses. And, since their email list sign up leaves a place to check if you have an interest in a residential system, they likely do have in mind making those.
That means that a well to do homeowner in an area that burns coal for electricity will soon be able to afford to stop relying on that power which will help increase the economy while avoiding the need for more coal fired plants.
Apparently, that is already true for businesses or soon will be as Bloom Energy rolls out their commercial product and increases production.
Even better, in areas like the Silicon Valley where the reliability of the supply of electricity is important and for which, despite the threat of earthquakes that disrupt both natural gas and electricity, most outages of electric power are from airplanes hitting power towers or wind storms taking out power lines or summer blackouts from excess demand overloading the grid – while at EVERY ONE of those times, natural gas continues uninterrupted.
So even if a business didn’t set up for all of their power needs to come from solar, wind, and Bloom’s fuel cells, they could have enough from some Bloom’s fuel cells alone if they were set up properly to keep the critical things running at slightly reduced levels when the grid provided electricity goes down.
Recently, I got an email from Bloom Energy that for now they are sticking with their commercial sized product that is a good bit too large for homes -- although a good sized set of apartments or condominiums might be a good market.
Also, since some of the equipment in ports, commuter trains, and ships are powered by diesel engines that produce both nitrogen oxides that produce smog and directly cause disease and worse with particulate pollution, they may well have a market here also for their current sized units.
An ideal use would be for ships that transport LNG, liquid natural gas, since the LNG could be used efficiently to power the ship by using Bloom Energy’s product instead of diesel to provide electricity to power the ship.
General Electric might directly consider trying Bloom energy’s current product to provide a much more clean burning way to make electricity for the locomotives built by GE’s division that builds those. These locomotives would be ideal for commuter lines that now go through areas that suffer air and noise pollution from the diesel electric locomotives used now. Such locomotives might well also offer significant savings on engine maintenance to train operating companies!
Then, when Bloom Energy is ready and able to try the market for smaller units, a really interesting idea would be to use their product to power fuel cell powered plug-in hybrids in cars and trucks that run on natural gas.
Since the amount of onboard natural gas would be small and the distance between fill-ups would be large, this might work well. But the real value is that this would be MORE energy efficient and dollar efficient than using diesel or gasoline or liquid biofuels.
Best of all, it would dramatically lower air pollution in cities where such vehicles are operated!
Why put up with car and truck caused air pollution in our cities when all electric cars and trucks and plug-in hybrids using Bloom Energy’s product can be used and have no air pollution instead?
A related idea would be to use their current product to supply charging stations for all-electric cars and plug-hybrids. That would enable setting up such stations in places where getting on the grid would take longer or cost more or not be doable.
Today's post: Wednesday, 3-3-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
Recently, Bloom Energy recently rolled back the curtain on their technology and product. They now are getting into production with a commercial product that can make electricity from natural gas or methane and perhaps other fuels onsite and cost effectively enough to save enough in reduced bills from grid distributed energy in 7 to 8 years to pay for their system.
It would be nice if that could be lowered to 2 to 4 years in the future; and it may be.
The key is using a fuel cell that does not require hydrogen or platinum or dangerous acids to work but which works as well or better as fuel cells that do. They apparently have such a technology that works.
See http://www.bloomenergy.com for more details.
Also, their initial product for the commercial market produces enough power for 100 homes. But the technology IS adaptable to make fuel cells of perhaps a three hundredth that size that will be sold for various sizes of homes and much smaller businesses. And, since their email list sign up leaves a place to check if you have an interest in a residential system, they likely do have in mind making those.
That means that a well to do homeowner in an area that burns coal for electricity will soon be able to afford to stop relying on that power which will help increase the economy while avoiding the need for more coal fired plants.
Apparently, that is already true for businesses or soon will be as Bloom Energy rolls out their commercial product and increases production.
Even better, in areas like the Silicon Valley where the reliability of the supply of electricity is important and for which, despite the threat of earthquakes that disrupt both natural gas and electricity, most outages of electric power are from airplanes hitting power towers or wind storms taking out power lines or summer blackouts from excess demand overloading the grid – while at EVERY ONE of those times, natural gas continues uninterrupted.
So even if a business didn’t set up for all of their power needs to come from solar, wind, and Bloom’s fuel cells, they could have enough from some Bloom’s fuel cells alone if they were set up properly to keep the critical things running at slightly reduced levels when the grid provided electricity goes down.
Recently, I got an email from Bloom Energy that for now they are sticking with their commercial sized product that is a good bit too large for homes -- although a good sized set of apartments or condominiums might be a good market.
Also, since some of the equipment in ports, commuter trains, and ships are powered by diesel engines that produce both nitrogen oxides that produce smog and directly cause disease and worse with particulate pollution, they may well have a market here also for their current sized units.
An ideal use would be for ships that transport LNG, liquid natural gas, since the LNG could be used efficiently to power the ship by using Bloom Energy’s product instead of diesel to provide electricity to power the ship.
General Electric might directly consider trying Bloom energy’s current product to provide a much more clean burning way to make electricity for the locomotives built by GE’s division that builds those. These locomotives would be ideal for commuter lines that now go through areas that suffer air and noise pollution from the diesel electric locomotives used now. Such locomotives might well also offer significant savings on engine maintenance to train operating companies!
Then, when Bloom Energy is ready and able to try the market for smaller units, a really interesting idea would be to use their product to power fuel cell powered plug-in hybrids in cars and trucks that run on natural gas.
Since the amount of onboard natural gas would be small and the distance between fill-ups would be large, this might work well. But the real value is that this would be MORE energy efficient and dollar efficient than using diesel or gasoline or liquid biofuels.
Best of all, it would dramatically lower air pollution in cities where such vehicles are operated!
Why put up with car and truck caused air pollution in our cities when all electric cars and trucks and plug-in hybrids using Bloom Energy’s product can be used and have no air pollution instead?
A related idea would be to use their current product to supply charging stations for all-electric cars and plug-hybrids. That would enable setting up such stations in places where getting on the grid would take longer or cost more or not be doable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)